e e e

.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb

6 i 6 6
5 .2 nRunning
d head: COLONIAL AND CULTURAL 5 .2 ndi
MANAGEMENT IN 1 5 .2 ndi
14 a 1 4 a 4 a
. M CONSERVATION . M .1 f M
: 69 of : 69 of 9
:6 yo
y y
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr

Colonial and Cultural Management Methodologies in Conservation: A comparison of Hawaii,

Samoa, & New Zealand

Mandi T. Jebe

Brigham Young University

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 2 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert
Colonial and Cultural Management Methodologies in Conservation: A comparison of Hawaii,IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
Samoa, and New Zealand

As both global exploration and conservation awareness have increased over the

centuries, the field of conservation has divided into different management strategies and in some

areas conservation has reached an impasse due to strategic differences. Two conservation

management styles which see consistent conflict across the globe are colonial management

strategies and cultural management strategies. However, this conflict cannot continue if the goal

is effective conservation. Artelle et al. (2019) state conservation in many significant areas will

become impossible and even unjust without Indigenous consent and leadership. Therefore, the

conflict between these two management strategies must be overcome. Not only does conflict

halt progress,
e it can also cause digression. According to Ross e et al. (2019) when governments e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i 6 . 6 .
5 .2 nand
d concerned communities both work to protect5and/or .2 ndi manage important ecosystems without 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o systems of co-management, both groups can : 6find o
y they aren’t working in harmony with one other, :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr possibly jeopardizing the work of the otherPr group. Pr
Tensions between cultural knowledge and management strategies and colonial

knowledge and management strategies are high, with each group pointing out the deficiencies of

the other (Bohensky & Maru, 2011). There are many different aspects of conservation which

cause tension between the two groups. For example, Cox & Elmqvist (1997) point out the two

schools of thought view resource use differently, with colonial management opting for

uninhabited preserves and cultural management opting for mitigated resource use. Wehi & Lord

(2017) add information indicating there is debate about whether biological conservation should

also include aspects of cultural conservation; they continue in their research to question whether

cultural values are included at all in goals for restoration and conservation of local land. Each
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 3 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert IP and r I P r
pe pe
strategy presents differently on these issues, it would appear compromise between the two
o p o o
Pr Pr Pr
would be the most effective solution.

However, compromise between the colonial and cultural management strategies has

historically been unsuccessful. Some programs demonstrate an obvious bias for scientific

studies over community knowledge and this bias has led to the exclusion of holistic cultural

knowledge in favor of more empirically based groups (Vaughn, Thompson and Ayers, 2017).

Bohensky and Maru (2011) even state “[indigenous] knowledge integration has merely become a

fashionable trend in natural resource management which amounts to little more than a box-

ticking exercise.” Their concerns do not appear to be misplaced. Maffie (2009) appears to be

solutions oriented in this arena, stating the incompatibility between science and other knowledge

systemse is perceived through treating either Western science e (the basis of colonial strategies) or e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i 6 . 6 .
5 .2 nIndigenous
d knowledge (the basis of cultural strategies)
5 .2 ndi as singular, dimensionless entities. This 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o perception is not the case with these complex o
: 6 knowledge
y systems. Before the false dichotomy : 6 y o
IP ert IP ert IP ert
o p p p
Pr between these two schools of thought canPbe ro further analyzed, a basic understanding of both Pro

colonial and cultural management strategies will be necessary.

Colonial conservation management strategies are familiar to anyone who lives in the

Western world. These strategies are not nuanced; they are straightforward. Colonial

conservation management strategies are based upon Western science and empirical evidence.

Because of this preference for evidence, indigenous knowledge is often dismissed because the

observations can be difficult to use since they are not quantified and often anecdotal (Berkes &

Berkes, 2009). Colonial conservation management strategies are often fit for the masses. This

largescale technique is used because colonial conservation management is aligned with

government of larger countries; entities of such size requires generalized and efficient solutions
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 4 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o :6 o
IP ert r often implemented through legal rules written IP erty
IP eare
to conservation issues. Therefore, strategies
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
by policymakers (Vaughn et al., 2017). As mentioned above, colonial strategies are conservation

strategies we are generally familiar with: sections of landscape are determined preservations and

off limits to the public, government organization implement grazing guidelines for land, local

water use is limited due to drought conditions, etc. This management style is common because it

exhibits a colonial mindset and the Western world was completely colonized. Not to mention

many areas are large and governed by a central organization, making this system the most

efficient way to address conservation issues.

Cultural conservation management strategies are more nuanced as well as subject to

change across many countries. The basis of cultural conservation management is indigenous

knowledge.
e Berkes and Berkes (2009) define indigenous knowledge e as “a cumulative body of e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i .
6 i 6 .
5 .2 nknowledge,
d practice, and belief, evolving by adaptive 5 .2 ndprocesses and handed down through 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o generations by cultural transmission” (p. 7). : 6While
y
o colonial conservation management focuses : 6 o
y
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op management focuses on observed facts, oral Pro
p
Pr Pr
on concrete, scientific fact, cultural conservation

history like legends, as well as religious/spiritual beliefs, etc. This level of inclusivity for data

which may not be considered empirical can be challenging for scientists and researchers to

accept. Scientists also have concern with the non-linear nature of cultural conservation

management strategies; in indigenous knowledge systems, locals rarely look for simple cause

and effect relationships, typically viewing those connections as simple-minded (Omura, 2005).

Berkes and Berkes (2009) point out many indigenous groups have practices which hint to a high

level understanding of ecology; not lacking in scientific understanding. Cultural conservation

management is also based around and through the local people. Locals have a responsibility to

the environment through their local institutions and they must be involved in conservation efforts
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 5 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert of their landscape (Gadgil, 1992; McNeely, IP ert
because they are deeply connected to the health
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
1993). Pretty et al. (2009) strongly claim biological conservation and cultural conservation

cannot be separated due to the strong connections between native peoples and the land they

subsist on. Lastly, it is evidenced that cultural conservation management provides a source of

resilience for social-ecological systems since the intergenerational transmission of the knowledge

has demonstrated an ability to last amidst various complexities and uncertainties (Armatus et al.,

2016; Bohensky & Maru, 2011). The nature of cultural conservation management strategies

makes them more difficult to understand for societal outsiders, and the ambiguous nature makes

it easy for colonial conservation management to disregard. Therefore, throughout colonization,

we have seen a decrease in the cultural conservation strategies which are preserved.

8 e To further analyze the conflict between colonial 8

conservation
e management strategies and e
.5 Je b
. 5 Je b
. 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 ncultural
d .2 ndi
conservation management strategies, the 5comparison of three countries, with both 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o methodologies present either previously orPin : 6 theo
y present can be utilized. Comparison of :6 yo
IP ert I ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr examples for all three countries could shed light on
methodologies, belief systems, and practical Pr
the process of integrating these two ideals. Hawaii, Samoa, and New Zealand all share similar

Polynesian cultural conservation methodologies and all countries have been subject to the

influence of colonizing nations throughout their development. Not only can they shed light on

the process these island nations undergo through the colonialization of their conservation

practices, but they each represent a different level of integration of the two management styles.

Hawaii represents an island community dominated by colonial conservation management

strategies, Samoa represents an island nation dominated by cultural conservation management

strategies, and New Zealand represents an island nation which is relatively effectively integrating

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 6 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert as an example for other nations struggling to IP ert
the two styles of management, and could serve
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
integrate colonial and cultural management strategies.

Hawai’i

Within the United States of America, there is extensive room for conflict between

colonial and cultural management styles. With the country being relatively young when

compared with its European allies, there were many established communities overtaken as the

United States was settled. Hawaii is one example of a state to witness the conflict between two

management styles firsthand. Hawaii, with the powerful United States government overseeing

its conservation efforts, exhibits a more colonial management style of conservation, with cultural

ideals sprinkled throughout the principles. Wehi & Lord (2017) supported this trend through

researche which indicated United States conservation projects e rarely mentioned goals connected e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
6 . 6 . 6 .
5 .2 ntodi cultural use and value of the land. However, Hawaiians
5 .2 ndi have a desire to promote cultural 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o management on their land. When an emphasis o placed on revitalizing Hawaiian cultural
: 6 ywas :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr
protocol in the use of marine resources, community involvement increased and enhanced Pr
management (Friedlander et al., 2000). Hawaiian organizations have a surface appeal to

Hawaiian cultural conservation practices, with the Hawaiian Conservation Alliance even stating

in its position that integration of the ideals is essential (Hawaiian Conservation Alliance, 2010).

However, it has yet to be proven that these intentions extend past superficial efforts. While a

low degree of integration between colonial and cultural management styles is seen in Hawaiian

conservation strategies, it is important to emphasize that this management hasn’t led to critical

losses in biodiversity.

As Hawaii was integrated into the United States, colonial management often replaced the

cultural management styles which were already in place. Vaughn et al. (2017) support this
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I er I er
o p op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 7 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert IP management
r I P r
pe pe
concept of replacement when they point out of fisheries in Hawaii has become
o p o o
Pr Pr Pr
centralized under a state department and shifted away from the local level. Such a shift from

cultural to colonial management is seen practically through a move away from customary land

management: a system known as Ahupua’a, which extended from the peaks of the mountains to

edges of the reefs. United States legal organization led to governance of narrow bands of

shoreline through Hawaii’s state resource management department. The fracturing of the

Ahupua’a system is just one example of how the legal rule-making system has overturned

traditional cultural practices.

The study completed by Vaughn et al. (2017) continued to look into the legal issues

surrounding a lack of integration between colonial and cultural management styles. There is a

fundamental
e difference between the functioning of culturale management and federal law-making, e
8
5 Je b 58 Jeb 58 Jeb
.
6 i .
6 i 6 .
5 .2 nsomething
d the researchers point out by illustrating5.2state
n d regulations focus mostly on negative 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o restraints as opposed to the positive standards o
: 6 taught
y through cultural practice. In order for :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op country like the United States, Vaughn et al. Pro
p
Pr Pr
traditional management to function in a colonial

theorized there would have be extensive procedural changes in the law-making process to add in

flexibility and adaptability for local conditions. Such law-making has been attempted. While

initial drafts may utilize both cultural and colonial management tools, the final rules tend to

include only Western approaches. Policies such as these fight the inclusion of cultural

knowledge and can exacerbate existing power inequities. Often, even laws which do include

cultural customs and knowledge become so complex they are ineffective, making understanding

and compliance from the public difficult. These results caused Vaughn and colleagues to

conclude United States legislative mandates were insufficient in developing meaningful

integration between colonial and cultural management practice (Vaughn et al., 2017).
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I er I er
o p op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 8 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert an example of this struggle for integration
Continued research in this area provides IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
throughout management of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (PMNM), also

known as the North Western Hawaiian Islands. Kikiloi et al. (2017) state integration is a main

goal of the management of the PMNM. Researchers state the “cornerstone” of the effort is

involvement of cultural practitioners in several areas. However, this representation is at low

levels of the organization, mirroring the idea presented by Vaughn et al. (2017) that initial

conservation efforts are laced with cultural management strategies, but the finalized efforts are

based upon colonial ideals. Kikiloi and colleagues (2017) even showcase the necessity of

government to back up cultural importance by relating the cultural importance of the “open

ocean areas” which are part of the monument, stating “…they still embody important cultural

connections
e and are invaluable in fully understanding the resourcese and essential components in e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i .
6 i 6 .
5 .2 nshaping
d effective management,” (p. 437) only to 5later .2 ndstate the Presidential Proclamation to 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o maintain the area as a Marine National Monument : 6 y o is what allowed true cultural integration to P: 6 ty o
IP ert IP ert I er
o p o p op
Pr become a priority. Furthermore, managementPr of the PMNM is manned by 4 organizations, only Pr
one of which represents native and local Hawaiians—the keepers of cultural management

practices, and the organization was only recently included as Co-trustees on the PMNM (Kikiloi

et al., 2017). Those who share and protect the cultural management practices of Native

Hawaiians have minority voice in the preservation of land which was once theirs, illustrating

while Hawaii attempts to integrate the two ideas of colonial and cultural management for

conservation, colonial management ends up as the stronger voice, providing the base of system

management, only adding cultural management strategies as seen fit.

In my personal travels amongst the Hawaiian Islands, I saw this principle of conservation

management illustrated many times, but specifically on the island of Molokai. When researching
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 9 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert fishpond on the South East side of the island. IP ert
on the island, my group and I toured a restored
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
While this restored fishpond provided an example of cultural management restoration, those

running the fishpond were subject to many rules and regulations to run the restored fishpond.

Not to mention, this fishpond is only one of the many ancient fishponds on Molokai and other

Hawaiian Islands to be restored and used. While touring it and learning from the caretakers was

an invaluable experience, I couldn’t help but feel as if the site was a trophy—a way for the

government to showcase care for cultural practices while continuing with colonial practices

throughout the remainder of the island. From personal experience combined with research, it

appears while Hawaii presents an effort to integrate colonial and cultural management strategies,

there is no true co-management. Colonial management is dominant in Hawaiian conservation

practices,
e leaving the values cultural management practices e could provide behind as show pieces e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
6 . 6 . 6 .
5 .2 ntodi manifest an idea of teamwork. 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6Samoa
y
o :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op an example of an extreme opposite toPro
p
Pr Pr
Samoa—specifically Western Samoa—provides

Hawaii when it comes to integration of colonial and cultural management. Western Samoa

operates mostly through cultural conservation management, although recent decades have seen

the introduction of some colonial ideals and strategies to the area. While this strategy doesn’t

showcase integration, it isn’t ineffective. Local coastal reforestation projects to reduce erosion

have seen increased sustainability. Researches Nalau et al. (2018) identified the key contributors

to such sustainability to be “local ownership, community champions, and [use of] the existing

traditional systems of governance” (p. 858). These key contributors, which tend to be specific to

cultural, community-based management strategies, indicate while Samoa doesn’t exhibit a high

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 10 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o :6 yo
IP ert IP eof
degree of integration between ideas, the lack IP ert
r integration hasn’t yet led to a loss of diversity or
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
resources.

Western Samoa, however, has not been immune to the colonial strategies which spread

through the Pacific with colonization of the islands. Researchers Cox and Elmqvist (1997)

completed a detailed study on cultural management practices in Samoa and provide insight to

this unique resilience. The researchers admit there has been conflict between the two

management styles, particularly around forest preserves on the island which were partially

fundraised for by Western NGOs. The cultural management strategies were difficult for colonial

management organizations to understand or accept, ultimately leading to a blatant unwillingness

to grant decision authority to the native Samoans (Cox & Elmqvist, 1997).

8 e The issue of misunderstandings between the two 8

separate
e approaches could be rooted e
.5 Je b
. 5 Je b
. 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 ndeeper
d .2 ndi
than differing conservation perspectives. 5Interesting research done by Nalau et al. (2018) 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o indicated there are financial nuances between : 6 theo
y two schools of thought. Samoan leaders :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr reached an understanding that grant money Pr should be used completely within a designated time Pr
frame, a typical perception within federal grant programs. This perception led Samoan leaders to

choose to complete more expensive, but less “green” conservation initiatives within their

communities because the “green initiatives” were not as expensive (Nalau et al., 2018). An issue

such as grants and funding for conservation is not something cultural management strategies are

equipped to deal with. Therefore, such a notion can be hard thing for a culturally managed

conservation effort to work within. Despite the many run-ins Western Samoa has had with

colonial conservation management strategies, as mentioned above, the country is still largely

culturally managed in conservation strategies.

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 11 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o :6 yo
IP ert IP egenerally
Western Samoa appears to have been r impervious to such strategies relative toIP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
some of its neighbor countries. Cox and Elmqvist (1997) capture this resilience by showcasing

village chiefs in Savai’i who began their own conservation group. This movement by locals who

keep and protect cultural conservation practices is unique and shows a unique aspect of a

colonial conservation idea—a conservation group—led and based upon cultural management

strategies. The conservation group, “Fa’asao Savai’i” has resisted logging of rainforests, even

demonstrating against loggers, and has also led planting campaigns, and a campaign against

nuclear testing. Resistance to some of these trademark colonial practices demonstrates where the

conservation group’s loyalties lie, regardless of the colonial influence upon their organization.

Western Samoa’s cultural management leanings are neatly summed up further by Cox and

Elmqvist
e (1997) through their recommendations at the8 conclusion e of their research. They state, e
8
5 Je b 5 Je b 58 Jeb
6 . 6 . 6 .
5 .2 ndi …village-controlled reserves should be founded
5 .2 ndi using the knowledge and belief systems 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo o
: 6 should
of the villagers themselves. Outsiders y consider basing conservation efforts on : 6 y o
IP ert IP ert IP ert
o p o p op
Pr Pr and conservation priorities of the people…Steps Pr
pre-existing conservation knowledge

must be taken to ensure that the ultimate decision-making authority remains completely

with the local village leadership. (p. 88)

Such statements illustrate the importance of appealing to cultural management strategies by

catering to cultural values and cultural, community leadership. It can’t be overlooked that while

Western Samoa may work within a world often lead by colonial management strategies, it has

held strongly to its cultural management strategies.

However, such dedication to the traditional cultural management system can create issues

of its own. Nalau and colleagues (2018) perceptively point out in their research that several

Samoan research participants noticed the lack of local adaptation in conservation management
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 12 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert
plans set out through colonial strategies. However, when looking for alternative information orIP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
greater indigenous knowledge, they were generally unaware of how to seek such information or

gain support from Samoan natives (Nalau et al., 2018). The same researchers explain this

problem is not unique to the Western Samoan area; areas which possess extensive indigenous

knowledge often hold that knowledge collectively, meaning certain aspects are only known to

certain individuals (Nalau et al., 2018). With knowledge spread between multiple sources, it

becomes difficult for even the best-intentioned researchers to gather the information and apply it

to conservation strategies. Not only is locating the indigenous knowledge tricky, but in a country

like Samoa, there are many village communities which make up the country. Each village

possesses unique leaders and a unique environment. Therefore, circumstances for each

community
e vary. This type of variation means researcherseand governments cannot assume one e
8
5 Je b 58 Jeb 58 Jeb
.
6 i 6 . 6 .
5 .2 nstrategy
d will work for all (Ross et al., 2019). Management
5 .2 ndi strategies, whether colonial or 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o cultural, must be adaptable to fit into a culturally : 6 y o managed country with more variation in :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr
leadership than is seen in most colonial countries. Pr
My time in Western Samoa truly showcased these ideals as my group and I traveled to

the village of Saipipi to work in the Marine Protected Area there. Marine Protected Areas

(MPAs) are designated through the United Nations, and locals maintain the area, protecting the

species within from harvest or disturbance, providing another example of how colonial

management has presented itself in Western Samoa. However, even with this institution being

linked to colonial management, it functions within cultural management. Before we worked on

the site, we took part in a sacred cultural ceremony with the Village Chiefs. The men who

maintain the site consistently are assigned work by the village chief. The MPA functioned

deeply within cultural management practices. While personally I found the ceremony and
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I er I er
o p op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 13 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert I recognize my career intentions remove me IP ert
cultural management aspect unique and special,
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
from the traditional researcher who could desire to work in the area, and I consequently

recognize the drastic difference it presents relative to colonial management practices. Such

ceremony may intimidate researchers, causing them to feel removed from the society or unable

to work within it. Therefore, there are characteristics within a mainly culturally managed

conservation system which can make responses to conservation issues difficult. While a cultural

management system isn’t ineffective and it preserves valuable cultural practices, it is not the

most efficient system, especially as climate experiences rapid, unprecedented changes in the face

of anthropogenic climate change.

New Zealand

8 e New Zealand offers a middle-ground approach8between e colonial and cultural e

.5 Je b
. 5 Je b
. 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nconservation
d management strategies. Therefore, 5it.2standsn d in contrast to both Samoa and Hawaii. 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o However, characteristics of both areas—and : 6both o
y management strategies—are present in New P: rty
6 o
IP ert IP ert I e
op op Therefore, New Zealand may be one the best rop
Pr Pr
Zealand at varying levels and times in history. P
countries to learn from when discussing integration of the colonial and cultural conservation

management. To understand the approach many New Zealanders take to conservation, it is first

important to understand some deeply rooted cultural concepts.

Maori, the native people of New Zealand have a critical ethic: kaitiakitanga. According

to Kawharu (2000) kaitiakitanga is a Maori socio-environmental ethic. Kawharu makes a

critical point about this ethic, stating “…it [kaitiakitanga] is not only about management of the

environment and of people, but also about keeping them in balance, both in time and space” (p.

366). New Zealand culture holds conservation of environment and people at its core, and

balance between the two is crucial. This central ethic has a great effect on how New Zealand
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 14 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert approaches conservation over time. KawharuIP ertadds “kaitiakitanga might even be thought to have
IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
been captured by latter day colonization,” (p. 349) indicating it is still used today in the

integrated colonial and cultural conservation management strategies New Zealand employs

New Zealand’s approach to conservation has not always been so integrated. During and

after the colonization of the country, colonial management strategies took hold. Nalau et al.

(2018) shed light on that situation by explaining often scientists or policymakers would frame

issues with a cultural context but quickly assume them into colonial strategies which were

justified only by scientific thought, not cultural. Vaughn et al. (2017) voiced a similar idea

before Nalau and colleagues, indicating New Zealand had seen “[a] failure to address conflicts in

underlying norms” (p. 32). This situation mirrors what is currently seen in Hawaii under United

Statesepolicymakers, which would indicate a lack in cultural e management strategies. However, it e

8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i 6 . 6 .
5 .2 nappears
d .2 ndi of New Zealand.
this situation is no longer the case in the country
5 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo New Zealand went through what some y
o term a cultural reawakening a few decades : 6 o
: 6 could y
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr ago, which included an emphasis on Maori Pr language and recognition of tribal power throughout Pr
the country (Kawharu, 2000). While this awakening happened some time ago, the effects of a

reemphasis on culture are now being seen. Artelle et al. (2019) report conservation work at the

country, not local, level led by Maori is correlated with substantial increases in conservation

recently. One effect of this approach to conservation was several mountains and rivers gaining

person-hood status from the government, providing them extensive protection but also allowing

for local use. Such a gesture has deep cultural ties. Pretty et al. (2009) report landscapes are a

connection between people and place and are spaces people feel they have relationships with.

Adding to that point, Pretty et al. further report reshaping perceptions of protected environments

is an important development to conservation efforts. Declaring personhood for certain

e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I er I er
o p op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 15 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert shifts the perception of such landscapes and can
geographic sites across New Zealand drastically IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
allow people to rebuild those personal connections. Wehi and Lord (2017) published a similar

opinion, stating “We suggest that by restoring the relationship between people and the land and

encouraging sustainable use of natural areas, whether firewood or fungi collecting, uptake and

success of restoration projects is likely to increase” (p. 1116). Not only do moves like this one

retain cultural values and management strategies, they effectively integrate colonial and cultural

approaches. Not only have areas of diversity been protected through legal measures (a colonial

approach), but cultural value of the land and spiritual connections between landscape and people

(a cultural approach) are being honored. This joint approach is invaluable in conservation.

Some scientists provide an example of this joint approach in research. In a simulation

completed
e by Lyver et al. (2009) studying cultural harvestse of the Maori, scientific measures e
8
5 Je b 58 Jeb 58 Jeb
.
6 i 6 . 6 .
5 .2 nwere
d used along with a full scope of cultural management5 .2 ndi strategies identified by Maori elders 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o themselves, examples of which are “mana P(authority),
:6 yo mauri (essence of life force), [or] tikanga : 6 y o
IP ert I ert IP ert
o p o p p
Pr Pr
(traditional custom)” (p. 40). While this approach was a great example of combining colonialPro

and cultural management strategies,

Lyver et al. draw a conclusion which

embodies the spirit of this paper. They

state: “This study emphasizes how using

both science and the full matrix of

traditional knowledge can offer wildlife

management the better of two world views” (p. 40). Not only were the results of this simulation

(discussed in detail below) revolutionary for an integrational approach, but this conclusion

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 16 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert provides the insight that true integration ofIPcolonial
r I P r
pe pe
and cultural management strategies can have
o p o o
Pr Pr Pr
a synergistic effect.

The simulation conducted by Lyver et al. (2009) ties closely to another study done by

Wehi and Lord (2017) and provides a research-based example of New Zealand’s ability to

integrate colonial and conservation management strategies. Both studies investigate the

culturally significant kereru (a bird species indigenous to New Zealand) harvest and the

conservation of the species. Lyver et al. studied the harvest first, investigating the scientific and

cultural approaches to the long-held tradition among the Maori. Lyver and colleagues

endeavored to determine how the Maori chose when to harvest the kereru, and if there was any

scientific observation involved in such a decision. Lyver et al. came up with three explanations

for thee kereru harvest strategy, the third explanation being ethe most important. This explanation e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nhypothesizes
d harvest time was a deliberate strategy 5 .2 by
n d the tribe to assist in sustaining the 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o resource for years to come. Such an explanation : 6 y oindicated something rarely considered: there P: 6 ty o
IP ert IP ert I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr
was scientific thought and observation attached to the long-held cultural practices. When tribal Pr
leaders where asked about the harvest tradition, their response was as follows:

We [the Tuhoe] were well aware that harvesting after the breeding season meant we were

taking young kereru as well as older birds. Therefore, lessening our impact on the

population. The fact that this period coincided with when the birds were at their fattest

and tastiest is just nature’s way of guiding use to make sure we harvest at the time to

ensure sustainability. We follow nature’s direction. (p. 47)

Lyver et al. provide great examples of how cultural and colonial strategies can function together.

While the kereru harvest was culturally managed, and the tradition was passed down through the

natives, the process wasn’t uninformed by science. We can’t assume a dichotomy between the
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
nd CONSERVATION 17 5 .2 ndi
14 a 1 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9. of M 9.1 f M
6
: y 6
: ty :6 yo
IP ert two management styles when there clearlyIPisn’tr anything forcing these two strategies to be IP ert
o p o pe op
Pr Pr Pr
separate.

I personally witnessed this integration in my time in New Zealand. I witnessed this

integration all across the country, but the one experience which sticks out in my memory is

visiting the Kauri trees. My group and I were able to visit the two largest Kauri trees while in

New Zealand. While visiting Te Matua Ngahere (Father of the Forest), I was struck at the

complementary nature of the colonial and cultural management. The park was maintained by a

governmental organization, illustrating the colonial side of management. But what was being

preserved had deep cultural connections, even ties to the creation story belief of the Maori.

Signs along the path shared the cultural importance with whoever visited. Providing visitors

with such
e a holistic view of conservation is powerful, 8providing e multiple connections to those e
8
5 Je b 5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i 6 . 6 .
5 .2 nactions
d and inspiring multiple desires for conservation
5 .2 ndiwithin those visitors. While New Zealand 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o isn’t perfect at this integration and has traveled : 6 yaolong road to achieve their current system, the P: 6 ty o
IP ert IP ert I er
o p o p op
Pr evidence through research seems to suggestPr New Zealand has found an effective strategy within Pr
the Polynesian culture for combining colonial and cultural management strategies.

Conclusion

Tensions run high between colonial and cultural conservation management strategies,

especially in countries exposed to both. It is obvious both systems alone possess shortcomings:

neither takes in the full scope of possibilities when investigating conservation. However, a

combination of the two would provide “the better of two world views” (Lyver et al., 2009, p. 40).

Berkes and Berkes (2009) conclude their analysis into the topic by stating,

The short answer is that both kinds of knowledge are desirable because they extend the

range of information available. The long answer is, the two kinds of knowledge have
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I er I er
o p op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 18 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert for complementarity. Indigenous knowledgeIP ert
different relative strengths and a potential
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
appears to bring some unique advantage to dealing multiple variables and complexity.

(p.9)

Because of this variability for both systems, Bohensky and Maru conclude their investigation by

stating a thorough knowledge of both strategies is a prerequisite to integration. I would tend to

agree with such an assessment. For full integration and not just superficial box-ticking, the

strengths and weaknesses of each strategy must be anticipated.

The island nations which appear to be lacking in the ability to integrate the two strategies

most likely lack an understanding of both. Hawaii has been removed from cultural roots for an

extended period of time. And while there have been efforts to revive the culture, some has been

lost. Without
e an abundance of firsthand knowledge cultural e conservation management strategies e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
.
6 i .
6 i 6 .
5 .2 nmay
d not be understood enough for true integration. 5 .2 Samoa
n d focuses mainly on the preservation of 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o culture, something which is special since so 6 o island nations have lost that invaluable
: manyy :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op colonial methodologies may have left the localsrop
Pr knowledge. Previous negative encountersPrwith P
questioning the merits of colonial management. As people begin to teach more about colonial

conservation management and the benefits of strict scientific inquiry, perhaps true integration

will be possible. New Zealand, due to its mixture of cultural and colonial background reaches a

“sweet spot” for integration. The cultural revival the locals experienced through a revival of

their language and the tribes allowed for a deeper understanding of the cultural conservation

management strategies while the colonial history of the country had already introduced the

colonial management strategies. With the right amount of understanding in each methodology

integration is possible, allowing one management practice to bolster the weak spots of the other.

New Zealand’s example of combining colonial and cultural management has developed well,
e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o P : 6 ty o
I e r I e r I er
o p o p op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 19 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o :6 o
IP ert IP eof
allowing its integration to be superior to that r surrounding island communities. Therefore, IP erty
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
such a system should be emulated by those island nations hoping to integrate colonial and

cultural conservation management strategies by first understanding both methodologies better.

With such an emphasis on both, we truly can offer “wildlife management the better of two world

views” (Lyver et al., 2009, p. 40).

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo :6 yo :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr Pr

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
nd CONSERVATION 20 5 .2 ndi
14 a 1 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9. of M 9.1 f M
6
: y 6
: ty :6 yo
IP ert IPReferences
r IP ert
o p o pe op
Pr Pr Pr
Armatas, C. A., Venn, T. J., McBride, B. B., Watson, A. E., & Carver, S. J. (2016).

Opportunities to utilize traditional phenological knowledge to support adaptive

management of social-ecological systems vulnerable to changes in climate and fire

regimes. Ecology and Society, 21(1), 16-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07905-210116

Artelle, K. A., Zurba, M., Bhattacharyya, J., Chan, D. E., Brown, K., Housty, J., & Moola, F.

(2019). Supporting resurgent Indigenous-led governance: A nascent mechanism for just

and effective conservation. Biological Conservation, 240, 108284.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108284

Berkes, F. & Berkes, M.K. (2009). Ecological complexity, fuzzy logic, and holism in indigenous

8 e knowledge. Futures, 41, 6-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.003

e e
.5 Je b
. 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 6
5 .2 nBohensky,
d E. L. & Maru, Y. (2011). Indigenous knowledge,
5 .2 ndi science, and resilience: What have 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 y o literature on “integration”? Ecology and
we learned from a decade of international :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr Pr
Society, 16(4), 6-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04342-160406 Pr
Cox, P. A. & Elmqvist, T. (1997). Ecocolonialism and indigenous-controlled rainforest preserves

in Samoa. Ambio, 26(2), 84-89.

Friedlander, A., Poepoe, K., Helm, K., Bartram, P., Maragos, J., & Abbott, I. (2000). Application

of Hawaiian traditions to community-based fishery management. Proceedings 9th

International Coral Reef Symposium, 2, 23-27.

Gadgil, M. (1992). Conserving biodiversity as if people matter: A case study from India. Ambio

21, 266-270.

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 21 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o :6 o
IP ert Hawaiian Conservation Alliance. (2010 Dec r HCA Position Paper: Hawaiian Culture and IP erty
IP e9).
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
Conservation in Hawai’i. Hawaii Conservation. http://www.hawaiiconservation.org/wp-

content/uploads/Culturally-Grounded-Conservation.pdf

Kawharu, M. (2000). Kaitiakitanga: “A Maori Anthropological Perspective of the Maori Socio-

Environmental Ethic of Resource Management. The Journal of the Polynesian Society,

109(4), 349-370.

Kikiloi, K., Friedlander, A. M., Wilhelm, A., Lewis, N., Quiocho, K., Aila Jr., W., &

Kaho’ohalahala, S. (2017). Papahānaumokuākea: Integrating Culture in the Design and

Management of one of the World’s Largest Marine Protected Areas. Coastal

Management. 45(6), 436-451. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2017.1373450

Lyver,e P. O’B., Jones, C. J., & Doherty, J. (2009). Flavor or e Forethought: Tuhoe Traditional e
8
5 Je b 8
5 Je b 58 Jeb
6 . 6 . 6 .
5 .2 ndi Management Strategies for the Conservation 5 .2 nofdi Kereru (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
:6 yo : 6 y o and Society, 14(1), 40-55.
novaeseelandiae) in New Zealand. Ecology :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op ro
p
gun, and they have not’: Future prospects of Pro
p
Pr Maffie, J. (2009). ‘In the end we have thePGatlin

Indigenous knowledges. Futures, 41(1), 53-64.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2008.07.008

McNeely, J. A. (1993). People and protected areas: partners in prosperity. Indigenous Peoples

and Protected Areas, Kemf, E. (ed.). Sierra Club, San Francisco, 246-257.

Nalau, J., Becken, S., Schliephack, J., Parsons, M., Brown, C., & Mackey, B. (2018). The Role

of Indigenous and Traditional Knowledge in Ecosystem-Based Adaptation: A Review of

the Literature and Case Studies from the Pacific Islands. Weather, Climate, and Society,

10(4), 851-865. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-18-0032.1

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr
 e e e
.58 Jeb . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6 i 6 i 6
5 .2 nCOLONIAL
d AND CULTURAL MANAGEMENT 5 .2 IN
n d CONSERVATION 22 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M
:6 yo : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert Omura, K. (2005). Science against modernIPscience: r I P r
pe pe
the socio-political construction of otherness
o p o o
Pr Pr Pr
in Inuit TEK (traditional ecological knowledge). Senri Ethnological Studies, 67, 323-344.

Pretty, J., Adams, B., Berkes, F., Athayde, S. F. de, Dudley, N., Hunn, E., Maffi, L., Rapport, D.,

Robbins, P., Sterling, E., Stolton, S., Tsing, A., Vintinner, E., & Pilgrim, S. (2009). The

Intersections of Biological Diversity and Cultural Diversity: Towards Integration.

Conservation and Society, 7(2), 100-112. https://doi.org/10.4103.0972-4923.58642

Ross, H., Adhuri, D. S., Abdurrahim, A. Y., & Phelan, A. (2019). Opportunities in community-

government cooperation to maintain marine ecosystem services in the Asia-Pacific and

Oceania. Ecosystem Services, 38, 100969. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100969

Vaughn, M. B., Thompson, B., & Ayers, A. L. (2017). Pāwehe Ke Kai a’o Hā’ena: Creating

8 e State Law based on Customary Indigenous Norms 8 eof Coastal Management. Society and e
.5 Je b
. 5 Je b
. 58 Jeb
6 6 6
5 .2 ndi .2 ndi
Natural Resources, 30(1), 31-46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1196406
5 5 .2 ndi
4 a 4 a 4 a
9 .1 f M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
: 6 y o Wehi, P. M. & Lord, J.M. (2017). Importance : 6 of o
y including cultural practices in ecological :6 yo
IP ert IP ert IP ert
op op op
Pr restoration. Conservation Biology,Pr31(5), 1109-1118. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12915 Pr

8 b e e e
.5 Je . 58 Jeb . 58 Jeb
6
2 i 6 6
5. and 5 .2 ndi 5 .2 ndi
14 4 a 4 a
9. of M 9 .1 f M 9.1 f M
6
: y : 6 ty o : 6 ty o
IP ert P
I er P
I er
op op op
Pr Pr Pr